16 Columbus Street, St. Helier

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (28.06.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for 16 Columbus Street, St. Helier.

Subject:	16 Columbus Street, St. Helier Construct 1 No. 2 bedroom dwelling.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0102	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	WRITTEN & ORAL	Person Giving Report (if oral):		M.JONES
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2006/0229
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		M. JONES
Decision(s) - Maintain Refusal
Reason(s) for decision: The site is unable to provide adequate external private amenity space and adequate car parking provision for the proposed 2 bedroom dwelling and therefore fails to meet the standards of Policy G2 (v) & (vii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. Although not included as a reason for refusal it was also noted that the proposal was unable to provide the minimum space standards required for new dwellings and therefore fails to meet the standards of Planning Policy Note No. 6 contrary to Policy H8 (i) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.
Action required: Inform Agent
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 28th June 2006

16 Columbus Street, St. Helier - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2006/0229

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	16, Columbus Street, St. Helier.

Requested by	Dralexan Holdings Ltd	Agent	ARCHITECTURAL PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES LTD

Description	Construct 1 No. 2 bedroom dwelling. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permssion.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The site is unable to provide adequate external private amenity space for the proposed 2 bedroom dwelling and therefore fails to meet the standards of Planning Policy Note No. 6 and is contrary to Policy G2 (v) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The site is unable to provide adequate car parking provision in support of the scheme and therefore fails to meet the standards of Planning Policy Notes No. 3 and is contrary to Policy G2 (vii) of the Jersey Island Plan,2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	16/03/2006

Zones	Built Up Area

Policies	G2 (v) (vii) H8 (i)

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	History of Site No previous planning history can be found for this site. Consultation Comments - Parish The Parish did not submit an official written response to consultation request. However, John Stievenard - Parish of St. Helier, confirmed during telephone discussion with officer that the Parish had no comments or objections to make regarding the proposed works. Comments 15th May 2006 - A request for reconsideration letter was received from the agent which queried the allocation delay of the application and the lack of opportunity afforded the applicant to address any contentious planning issues within the scheme. Firstly, records reflect that the application was allocated to an officer on 9th February 2006, five days before it was advertised in the Jersey Evening Post. These time scales do not equate to an internal administrative delay. Secondly, where possible, applicants are given the opportunity to amend or discuss their proposals, however, due to the physical constraints of this site the opportunity to negotiate was not considered appropriate in this instance. The agent’s reference to Policy BE3 cannot be taken into this request for reconsideration as it essentially relates to commercial properties within the town centre. Although the site is located just outside the heart of St. Helier the considered current use of the building for commercial archive storage the “bad neighbour” is in planning terms considered to be a benign and infrequent use which is not unsuited to this predominantly residential area. The agent’s reference to recent planning application P/2006/0306, although not dissimilar, has some distinct differences, in that it lends itself more readily to conversion into habitable accommodation by providing, 3 no. car parking spaces and meets the minimum space standards for a 2 storey dwelling by providing 85 sq m of accommodation. However, as with this application planning application P/2006/0306, was unable to provide any external amenity space. Conclusion Although a relaxation of standards towards car parking and amenity space can sometimes be seen as appropriate for developments in and around town this has tended to be for existing dwellings where an extension is required or as in the case of ‘Century Buildings’ & ‘The Spectrum Development’ the high quality building specification and inclusion of occupiers needs and occasionally community facilities have been able to counter balance any shortfalls in policy requirements for car parking or amenity standards. This site also differs to that of planning application P/2006/0306 in that it is unable to provide any car parking in support of the new 2 bedroom dwelling and the amenity space offered fails to meet the minimum standard of 30 sq m. If approved the amenity space for the existing 3 no. adjacent flats would be reduced to approximately 70 sq m. (The remaining amenity of which cannot be taken into this application as there appears to be some ambiguity surrounding the existing sheds to the rear of the site and general shared amenity with the adjacent property to the south/east of the site). (Please refer to Mr & Mrs. Casey’s objection letter dated 24.02.06). Although not included as a reason for refusal on re-examining the floor plans for the scheme it is clear the proposal is unable to meet the required standards of Planning Policy Note no. 6 which requires that 80 sq m needs to be provided for a new 2 storey dwelling (proposed 65 sq m). To conclude the proposed intensification of use of the site is considered an overdevelopment of an already physically restricted site which would reduce the amenity space for the existing 3 no.. flats, prejudice the use of the shared amenity of the adjacent neighbouring property, fail to provide adequate car parking and fail to provide the minimum space standards for new dwellings. Therefore it is recommended that the Minister for Planning and Environment maintains refusal of this application and adds an additional reason for refusal of this application. (3) The proposed 2 bedroom dwelling is unable to provide the minimum space standards required for new dwellings and therefore fails to meet the standards of Planning Policy Note No. 6 contrary to Policy H8 (i) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	As above.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Request for Reconsideration from agent : 15th May 2006 Letter from Agent - 3rd March & 30th Jan. 2006 Objection letter - 24.02.06 - Mr Casey P/2006/0306 - (Referenced in agents letter 15th May 2006)

Endorsed by		Date